Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
M.Tech (student), 2 Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, GIET, AndhraPradesh, India, wdsmiltonponnala@gmail.com, kln_m@rediffmail.com
Abstract
Generally in any manufacturing industry, a human process planner selects the machining parameters based on his expertise or from data handbooks; they do not represent the optimal values. The optimization process involves the optimal selection of machining parameters such as cutting speed, feed and depth of cut, subjected to practical constraints of surface finish, tool wear, dimensional accuracy and machine tool capabilities. Several researches have used different techniques in literature to optimize machining process by considering a machining problem as single objective optimization problem. However a machining problem should be treated as a multi objective problem as it involves two conflicting objectives: machining time and production cost. In such problems there cannot be single optimal solution. To get all optimal solutions, a multi objective optimization method called Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA) is proposed in the project work. In the first part of the present work, mathematical relationships between input and output parameters have been developed by Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Consequently there have been solved to get the optimal values. The general second order composite rotatable design is used in planning and modeling the experiments. The experiments were conducted on the general purpose milling machine using a 60mm*60mm*40mm block (AISI 1040steel).In the second part a multi optimization algorithm called non dominated sorting genetic algorithm was used to retrieve all set of optimum values. In NASA, the non-dominated sorting procedure is used to bring forth the good points of correct population and stable subpopulations of good points are maintained by Niche method. The present work enables the industries to have the optimum values of the milling process variables and conducting the process can be automated based on optimal values.
Index Terms: AISI 1040steel, Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA), Optimization, Response Surface Methodology (RSM), and Multi Optimization Algorithm etc -----------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------1. INTRODUCTION
Milling is the process of cutting away material by feeding a work piece past a rotating multiple tooth cutter. The cutting action of the many teeth around the milling cutter provides a fast method of machining. The machined surface may be flat, angular, or curved. The surface may also be milled to any combination of shapes. The machine for holding the work piece, rotating the cutter, and feeding it is known as the milling machine.
Design criteria
A-millsize or cutting diameter B - shank diameter C - length of cut or flute length D - overall length
Almost all RSM problems use one or both of these models. Of course it is unlikely that a polynomial model will be a reasonable approximation of the true function
4.
NONDOMINATED
SORTING
GENETIC
ALGORITHEM
Many real-world design or decision making problems involve simultaneous optimization of multiple objectives. In principle, multi objective optimization is very different than the single objective optimization. In single objective optimization, one attempts to obtain the best design or decision, which is usually the global minimum or the global maximum depending on the optimization problem is that of minimization or maximization. In the case of multiple objectives, there may not exist one solution which is best (global minimum or maximum) with respect to all objectives. In a typical multi objective optimization problem, there exists a set of solutions which are superior to the rest of solutions in the search space when all objectives are considered but are inferior to other solutions in the space in one or more objectives. These solutions are known as Pareto-optimal solutions or non dominated solutions (ChankongandHaimes1983;Hans1988). The rest of the solutions are known as dominated solutions. Since none of the solutions in the non dominated set is absolutely better than any other, any one of them is an acceptable solution. The choice of one solution over the other requires problem knowledge and a number of problem related factors. Thus, one solution chosen by a designer may not be acceptable to another designer or in a changed environment. Therefore, in multi objective optimization problems, it may be useful to have a knowledge about alternative Pareto-optimal solutions. One way to solve multi objective problems is to scalarize the vector of objectives into one objective by averaging the objectives with a weight vector. This process allows a simpler optimization algorithm to be used, but the obtained solution largely depends on the weight vector used in the scalarization process. Moreover, if available, a decision maker may be interested in knowing alternate solutions. Since genetic algorithms (GAs) work with a population of points, a number of Pareto-optimal solutions may be captured using GAs. A
4.2 GA Implementation
As early as in 1967, Rosenberg suggested, but did not simulate, a genetic search to the simulation of the genetics and the chemistry of a population of single- celled organisms with multiple properties or objectives (Rosenberg1967). The first practical algorithm, called Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithm (VEGA), was developed by Schaffer in 1984 (Schaffer 1984). One of the problems with VEGA, as realized by Schaffer himself, is its bias towards some Pareto-optimal solutions. Later, Goldberg suggested another non dominated sorting procedure to overcome this weakness of VEGA (Goldberg 1989). Our algorithm, Non dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA), is developed based on this idea. There exists atleast two other studies, different from our algorithm, based on Goldberg's idea. In the rest of this section, we discuss the merits and demerits of VEGA and NSGA, and the differences between NSGA and the two other recent implementations.
Identifying Non Dominating set Step1: Initialize PI= {1}.Set solution counter i = 2. Step2: Set j = 1. Step3: Compare solution i with j from P0 for domination. Step4: If i dominates j ,delete the j th member from P I or update PI = PI \{ PI (j)}.If j < | PI |, increment j by one and then go to step3.Otherwise go to step5.Alternatively ,if the jth member if P0 dominates i,increment i by one and then go to step2. Step5: Insert i in PI or Update PI = PI [ {i}.If i < N, increment i by one and go to step2.Otherwise ,Stop and declare PI as the non dominated set.
The above function takes value between [0,1],depending on the values of d(euclidean distance) and share.If d is zero(means two solutions are identical or their distance is zero), Sh(d) = 1.On the other hand, if d share (meaning that two
solutions are at least a distance of share away from each other),Sh(d) = 0.This means that two solutions which are a distance of share away from each other do not have any sharing effect on each other.Any other distance will have partial effect on each.Hence,we compute niche count (assuming _ = 2) as:
Where
The fitness assignment procedure begins from the first nondominated set and successively proceeds to dominated sets. Any solution i of the first (or best) non-dominated set is assigned a fitness equal to Fi = |P| (population size). This specific value of |P| is used for a particular purpose. Since all solutions in the first non-dominated set are equally important in terms of their closeness to the pareto optimal front relative to the current population, we assign the same fitness to all of them. Assigning more fitness to a solution belonging to a better non-dominated set ensures a selection pressure toward the pareto optimal front. However, in order to achieve the second goal, diversity among the solutions in a front must also be maintained.The sharing function method is used front-wise.
Step3.1: Assign Fitness Fj(q)= Fmin . Step3.2: Calculate niche count ncq using the above equation among solutions of Pj only. Step3.3: Calculate shared fitness Fj/(q)=Fj(q) Step4: Fmin = min(Fj/(q) : q Step5: If j complete Pj) and set j = j + 1. , to go Step3. Otherwise, the process is
5.
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
PROPOSED
METHODOLOGY 5.1. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS 5.1.1. Workpiece material, cutting tools and
equipment
The experimental study was carried out in wet cutting conditions on a DECKEL MAHO DMU 60 P five-axis,highspeed CNC milling machine equipped with a maximum
X2
X3
0.1
X4
Table 5.2. Control factors and their levels Fig.5.1.Schematic representation of workpiece and flat end mill The machining conditions at which the experiments were conducted are listed in Table 5.1. 1 2 3 4 Work piece Chemical material Work piece size composition Surface En-24 (SAE 4340) C-0.39%, Si-0.24%, Mn-0.71%,P60mm60mm40mm 0.02%,S-0.03% Portable Mitutoyo Surf Test 301
roughness Mitutoyo Surf Test 301 Table 5.1. Machining conditions measuring
5.5 CONDUCTING THE EXPERIMENTS AS PER THE DESIGN MATRIX AND RECORDING THE RESPONSES
Experiments were conducted according to the design matrix that has been developed by Design Expert 8.0.1 and the corresponding surface roughness (Ra) and Machining time(MT) are tabulated in the Table 6.3.The MRR is calculated as the ratio of volume of material removed from work piece to the machining time. The Ra was measured in perpendicular to the cutting direction using Surtronic (surface roughness tester) at a 0.8 mm cut-off value. For each sample, three readings of surface roughness are taken and an average of three measurements taken at three different places is recorded as the final reading.
OF
OPTIMIZATION
In the process of optimization, the aim is to minimam the MT and minimize the Ra, which forms the multi-objective optimization problem. Equations (5.1) and (5.2) represent the Ra and the MT respectively. The complexities of the models were reduced by applying the back elimination procedure. The final equations, after eliminating the insignificant terms, are as follows: SR=+2.26873-(0.00069186*A)(0.000317182*B)+(0.040858*C)+(0.72572*D)+(0.000000007 24712*A*B)-(0.000114881*A*C)(0.0000531375*A*D)+(0.000882196*B*C)+(0.00000263901 *B*D)+(0.27752*C*D)+(0.0000000581981*A*A)+(0.000000 00286653*B*B)-(0.39175*C*C)-(0.06067*D*D); ------------------------------------------(5.1) MT=+5.05321+(0.000488891*A)(0.00137808*B)+(0.83823*C)-(1.76017*D)(0.0000000359534*A*B)+(0.0000582352*A*C)(0.0000213060*A*D)+(0.0000197961*B*C)+(0.0000605759 *B*D)-(0.019818*C*D)(0.0000000284298*A*A)+(0.000000216738*B*B)(1.16075*C*C)+(0.19732*D*D); ----------------------------------(5.2) In the above equations , A , B, C and D represent the logarithmic transformations of depth of cut, horizontal inclination angle, feed and cutting speed respectively and are given below: Table 5.3. Central composite design with corresponding output values of Ra and MT(Parent population Pt )
5.6
DEVELOPMENT
OF
MATHEMATICAL
5.8
SIGNIFICANCE
OF
REGRESSION
COEFFICIENTS
In statistics, the coefficient of determination R2 (R-Sq) is the proportion of variability in a data set that is accounted for by a statistical model. In this definition, the term variability is defined as the sum of squares. R2 is a statistic that will give some information about the goodness of fit of a model. In regression, the R2 coefficient of determination is a statistical measure of how well the regression line approximates the real data points.The value of R2 in quadratic model for MT is 0.9510 which means that the regression model provides an excellent explanation of the relationship between the independent variables (factors) and the response (MT). The value of R2 in quadratic model for the surface roughness is 0.8812 which means that the regression model provides an excellent explanation of the relationship between the independent variables (factors) and the response (Ra) which indicates that the model is considered statistically significant.
Table 5.5. Analysis of variance for Ra:\ Response 1 Ra ANOVA for Response Surface Quadratic Model Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares - Type III] The Model F-value of 7.95 implies the model is significant. There is onlya 0.01% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.Values of "Prob > F" less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are significant. In this case A, B, C, D, AC, BC are significant model terms. Values greater than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant. If there are many insignificant model terms (not counting those required to supporthierarchy), model reduction may improve your model.The "Lack of Fit F-value" of 77.84 implies the Lack of Fit is significant. There is only a0.01% chance that a "Lack of Fit F-value" this large could occur due to noise.Significant lack of fit is bad -- we want the model to fit.
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
N o rm a l % P ro b a b ility
95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5
sr
-1
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.10
0.30
0.50
0.70
0.90
C: C
Fig 5.2 normal probability plot of the residuals for surface roughness
Design-Expert Software sr CI Bands X1 = A: A Actual Factors B: B = 2832.43 C: C = 0.71 D: D = 3.43
4
One Factor
3
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
sr
sr
-1
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
4000.00
4750.00
5500.00
6250.00
7000.00
7750.00
8500.00
9250.00
10000.00
D: D
A: A
Fig 5.6 effect of step over on surface roughness Fig 5.3 effect of spindle speed on surface roughness
Design-Expert Software sr CI Bands X1 = B: B Actual Factors A: A = 8540.54 C: C = 0.54 D: D = 3.00
3
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
2.5
sr
1.5
0.5
640.00
1472.00
2304.00
3136.00
3968.00
4800.00
B: B
The "Pred R-Squared" of 0.7681 is in reasonable agreement with the "Adj R-Squared" of 0.9052."Adeq Precision" measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. Your ratio of 17.385 indicates an adequate signal. This model can be used to navigate the design space.
Design-Expert Software mt Color points by value of mt: 3.68 0.72
99
N o rm a l % P ro b a b ility
95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Fig5.7 Normal probability plot of the residual for machining time Table. 5.7. varience for MT:Response2mtANOVAfor Response Surface Quadratic ModelAnalysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares - Type III] The Model F-value of 20.79 implies the model is significant.There is onlya 0.01% chance that a "Model FValue" this large could occur due to noise. Values of "Prob > F" less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are significant.In this case B, D, B2, D2 are significant model terms.Values greater than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant. If there are many insignificant model terms (not counting those required to support hierarchy), model reduction may improve your model.
Design-Expert Software mt CI Bands X1 = A: A Actual Factors B: B = 2720.00 C: C = 0.34 D: D = 1.43
4
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
mt
4000.00
4750.00
5500.00
6250.00
7000.00
7750.00
8500.00
9250.00
10000.00
A: A
The "Pred R-Squared" of 0.7681 is in reasonable agreement with the "Adj R-Squared" of 0.9052."Adeq Precision" measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. Your ratio of 17.385 indicates an adequate signal. This model can be used to navigate the design space.
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
mt
640.00
1472.00
2304.00
3136.00
3968.00
4800.00
B: B
MT =+6.28404+2.18906E-004 * A-1.38423E-003* B+0.87953 * C-2.02336* D -2.88481E-022* A * B+1.18539E-018 * A * C+4.34837E-019* A * D -2.84598E-018* B * C+8.95619E-005* B * D+3.66027E-015* C * D -1.56361E-008* A2+1.46131E-007* B2-0.87953* C2+0.20857* D2------------------------------------(4)
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
5.10 IMPLEMENTATION
Tables 5.7 to 5.9 display the implementation of NSGA for the present problem. Sample calculations are shown for one iteration of the algorithm. The bit lengths chosen for X1, X2, X3 and X4 are 4, 5, 4, and 3 respectively. It refers to the number of binary digits chosen for an individual control variable. As a first step, in the algorithm, an initial population of 27 chromosomes was generated randomly.
mt
0.10
0.30
0.50
0.70
0.90
C: C
Sr . N o 1 2 3 4
Input paramet er Spindle speed Feed rate Depth of cut Step over
Bit lengt h 4 5 4 3
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
mt
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Table 5.7. Lower and upper bounds and bit length for all variables
D: D
Fig 5.11 effect of step over on machining time The following equations were obtained for the Ra and MT in terms of the coded factors: Ra =-0.83990+1.18148E-004 * A-9.81121E-005 * B+5.18185 * C+0.21532 * D-7.09837E -008 * A * B-6.68750E-00 * A * C+3.54167E-005* A * D+9.09771E-004 * B * C
Then the population was classified into different levels of nondomination sets. In this approach, each solution has to be compared with every other solution in the population. For example, the objective function values of the first chromosome for the Ra and the MRR are 1.6261 and 2.3288 respectively. They were then compared with the corresponding objective function values of the second chromosome and subsequently with the values of other chromosomes in the population. The values of objective 1 and objective 2 are greater for the first chromosome when compared to the second chromosome. Therefore, it can be said that the first chromosome is non-dominating with respect to second one. The comparison was continued for all other chromosomes in the population and as the first chromosome is still non-dominant, it was ranked as 1. Similarly, each non-dominant chromosome obtained in first
Table 5.9 Selection of chromosomes The chromosomes selected in the mating pool were used in the crossover operation. In this work, two-point crossover was adopted, in which, the portions of the strings between the randomly selected crossover sites were swapped to create the new intermediate population as shown in Table 6.10. However, with the random sites, the offspring produced may or may not have a combination of good substrings from parent strings, depending on whether or not the crossing sites fall in the appropriate locations. If good strings are not created by crossover, they will not survive too long, because reproduction will select against those chromosomes in subsequent generations. In order to preserve some of the good chromosomes that are already present in the mating pool, not all chromosomes in the mating pool are used
The third operator, mutation, was then applied on the intermediate population. Bit-wise mutation was performed. The mutation operator changes 1 to 0 and vice versa based on a small mutation probability, pm. Mutation was implemented with the probability of 0.1 as shown in Table 6.10. Mutation is basically intended for local search around the current solution. Implementation of mutation completes one iteration of the algorithm. The above procedure was epeated until the maximum number of generations was completed. For better convergence, the algorithm was run for the maximum of 200 generations. Hence from the usual binary tournament selection, recombination, and mutation operators are used to create a child population Qt of size 30. This population is shown in table 5.11.
6. RESU LTS
Table.5.11.NEW POPULATION Now, we combined the parent population P t and child population Q t to get R t (asR t = Pt Qt). The population Rt will be of size 60. Then, the population Rt is sorted according to non-domination as discussed above. Since all previous and current population members are included in Rt, the elitism is ensured. Now, solutions belonging to the best non-dominated first set F1 are 9,11,13,14,15,16,28,41, 48,52 of best solutions in the combined population and must
Optimization of end milling parameters is very much essential as this is a highly stochastic process. Optimization helps in determining the parameters that result in both improved production rate and enhanced surface quality. In the present work influences of end milling parameters namely Spindle speed, Feed Rate, Depth of cut , Step over on Surface roughness (Ra) and Machining time (MT) are studied. Analytical models are developed based on experimental results for Ra and MT using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The present problem has been modeled as a multiobjective problem as Ra and MT are conflicting in nature. Increasing an input parameter in end milling results in improved production rate and increased tool wear as well. Excessive tool wear leads to poor surface quality. The optimization of these models is carried out using Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA). Unlike the conventional methods like Classical weighted approach and Goal programming method, NSGA retrieves all the Pareto-sets irrespective of the indicated weights of the objective functions. It is useful for the manufacturing industrie to select the values of input parameters at the desired levels of Ra and MT. Different sets of optimal process parameters are found out and represented in the form known as the Pareto-optimal set. Totally 100 such optimal parametric combinations are identified. The NSGA algorithm is implemented using Visual C++. In the Pareto-optimal set, the outcome is a group of nondominated solutions and none of the solution is better than any other solution in that set. Hence, a process engineer can select optimal combination of parameters from that set, depending upon the requirements. Once the optimal values have been determined the process can be automated based on those values.
The algorithm can be run for a few more times to get more number of optimal values. It can be observed from the table 7, that no solution in the front is better than any other as they are non-dominated solutions. The choice of a solution has to be made based on the production requirements. Table 7 enables to choose the optimal machining parameters for a fixed combination of the metal removal rate and the surface roughness. The obtained values by the algorithm are better than the experimentally observed values shown in Table 6.3. For example, the 23rd experiment in Table 6.3 leads to the Ra value of 2.25m and the MRR value of 4.242 gm/min. By optimization using the proposed algorithm, for the same value of Ra, the MRR was increased to 7.6807 gm/min (S. No. 44, Table 7). Similarly, the 11th experiment from Table 6.3 corresponds to the Ra value of 1.65 m and the MRR of 3.088 gm/min. After optimization, the Ra was reduced to 1.49m, for approximately the same value of the MRR of 3.0883 gm/min (S. No.40, from Table 7). In the above cases, improvement in the output responses was made possible by the selection of the different set of machining parameters.
REFERENCES:
[1]. E.J.A. Armarego Fundamental studies of driven and selfpropelled rotary tool cutting process- theoretical investigation, July 1993. [2]. Shuting Lei High speed machining of titanium alloys using driven rotary tool. Journal of Manufacturing Tools and Science, January 2002. [3]. P.G.Benardos Predicting surface roughness in machining: a review. International Journal of machine tools and manufacture, December 2002. [4]. Yusuf Sahin Surface roughness model for machining mild steel. Materials and design, May 2004. [5]. R.K.Katta Predictive cutting model for forces and power in self-propelled rotary tool turning operations. January 1997.